By M.K. Styllinski
“In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the l990s it triumphed over democracy.”
– David Korten
Keeping in mind this “destruction of social values”, it was inevitable that such a machine – once set in motion and programmed from a clustering of pathological mind-sets, had only one trajectory possible and that was to:
… become institutionalized into a restrictive system, sometimes called “mercantilism,” in which merchants sought to gain profits, not from the movements of goods but from restricting the movements of goods. Thus the pursuit of profits, which had earlier led to increased prosperity by increasing trade and production, became a restriction on both trade and production, because profit became an end in itself rather than an accessory mechanism in the economic system as a whole.” 
As merchants began to accumulate their wealth from these transactions they “became increasingly concerned not with the shipment and exchange of goods, but with the shipment and exchange of moneys,” which led to lending money to merchants and all the associated small print obligations that went with it. The net result meant that the breaking up of the economic process: “…had made it possible for people to concentrate on one portion of the process and, by maximizing that portion, to jeopardize the rest.”
Meanwhile, international banking operations had adopted the emerging penchant for secrecy and the fostering of esoteric banking jargon so essential to the success of any monopolistic process designed to “keep it in the family”. They became “…concealed, scattered, and abstract” where their “… activities were reflected in mysterious marks in ledgers which were never opened to the curious outsider,” a language which has continued to the present day.  Yet the mechanics and structure of the privileged system they had created was crystal clear to themselves. This clarity reflected the fundamental knowledge that supply was married to the demand for goods, the demand for money and the speed of exchange between money and goods.
An increase in three of these (demand for goods, supply of money, speed of circulation) would move the prices of goods up and the value of money down. This inflation was objectionable to bankers, although desirable to producers and merchants. On the other hand, a decrease in the same three items would be deflationary and would please bankers, worry producers and merchants, and delight consumers (who obtained more goods for less money). The other factors worked in the opposite direction, so that an increase in them (supply of goods, demand for money, and slowness of circulation or exchange) would be deflationary [and vice versa].
Such changes of prices, either inflationary or deflationary, have been major forces in history for the last six centuries at least. Over that long period, their power to modify men’s lives and human history has been increasing. 
Propaganda being the Banksters’ best friend, they put this to good use regarding the value of money. This obsession had nothing to do with maintaining stability or promoting confidence in business but everything to do with control – without it dividends cannot be secured long-term and the human resources to produce it. The famous quote from the Big Daddy of Banking mobsters Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild: “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws,” perfectly describes why this financial system is designed for this kind of easy exploitation.
After all, as Quigley points out:
Rising prices benefit debtors and injure creditors, while falling prices do the opposite. A debtor called upon to pay a debt at a time when prices are higher than when he contracted the debt must yield up less goods and services than he obtained at the earlier date, on a lower price level when he borrowed the money. A creditor, such as a bank, which has lent money—equivalent to a certain quantity of goods and services—on one price level, gets back the same amount of money—but a smaller quantity of goods and services—when repayment comes at a higher price level, because the money repaid is then less valuable. 
With this in mind and with a firm foundation of mercantile history of networks in other countries, they set about locking in a system of credit and debt that would always favour the Elite. They used their positions at the top of the pyramid to do two things: “(1) to get all money and debts expressed in terms of a strictly limited commodity—ultimately gold; and (2) to get all monetary matters out of the control of governments and political authority, on the grounds that they would be handled better by private banking interests.”
And what a jolly time they’ve had ever since.
Their next sleight of hand would be to create money out of nothing – the beloved fiat currency so enamoured of the Federal Reserve. There was a time when the gold standard and liquid assets proved at least to be a stabilising factor in a world where abstraction and eventual deregulation would rule the day. Currency claims greater than the gold reserve meant that this was the beginning of the virus of techno-speculation in the markets today. In other words:
… creation of paper claims greater than the reserves available means that bankers were creating money out of nothing. The same thing could be done in another way, not by note-issuing banks but by deposit banks. Deposit bankers discovered that orders and checks drawn against deposits by depositors and given to third persons were often not cashed by the latter but were deposited to their own accounts. Thus there were no actual movements of funds, and payments were made simply by bookkeeping transactions on the accounts. Accordingly, it was necessary for the banker to keep on hand in actual money … no more than the fraction of deposits likely to be drawn upon and cashed; the rest could be used for loans, and if these loans were made by creating a deposit for the borrower, who in turn would draw checks upon it rather than withdraw it in money, such ‘created deposits’ or loans could also be covered adequately by retaining reserves to only a fraction of their value. 
The J.P. Morgans, Rockefellers, Carniegies, Harrimans, Schiffs, Warburgs and most importantly, the Rothschilds, comprised the invasive explosion of financial capitalism from about 1850 – 1931. These dynasties of international Banksters spreading out from the hub of London, extending a built first by the provincial bankers which then fed into the larger nodes based in key centres. Insurance companies and savings banks were integrated into what was envisioned as single monolith network of financial appropriation of the masses. This began to underlay every aspect of commercial life on the planet. The key to the success of this system was the manipulation of the quantity and flow of money a natural consequence of which was the ability to control government and the directly related emergence of the corporate state. Central banks varied the amount of money in circulation by “open market operations” in other words, by buying or selling government bonds in the open market thereby releasing money into the open market if it bought, or decreasing the sum of money in communities if it sold. The actual quantity of money could also be changed by central banks by influencing the credit policies of other banks.
There was limited influence of government as they were technically at least, private institutions. They did not see politicians as anything other than tools for the extension and enhancement of that financial network so that the real trust lay with “those in the know” rooted either in a literal occult knowledge and / or corporate secrecy that did not fit mechanisms of government.
The chiefs of these central banks and especially the Central Bank of England were according to Quigley and others:
…. the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. 
Contrary to common belief, most of these early 20th century oligarchs were not right wing capitalists in the traditional sense. A fusion of communist and unfettered capitalism captured their vision. They invested in art, institutions and education, infusing them with their own ideas as to how reality should function. Their history and sense of superiority was rooted in the concept of feudalism and the elitism that went with it, not least the occult influence of freemasonry that immediately guided the already self-important authoritarian mould upon which many were formed. These wealthy dynasties like aristocracies, married within the family in part based on ideas of keeping the bloodlines “pure” and thus genetically superior. These fascistic tendencies would be further emboldened by the Social Darwinism * which took special root in the United States. It was all nonsense, of course. Such bloodline antics merely produced genetic anomalies and diseases as so many family monarchies showed. However, what it may have done was make the pool of psychopathic inheritance much stronger seeded as they were in such dominant expressions of control and acquisition. So, consciously or unconsciously, the pathocratic structure was also being built into that very same financial network which would reap benefits for those of the same pathology but cause intense suffering for the normal people of humanity.
By the 1930s investment bankers were firmly in control, with governments going cap in hand to their masters with the formation of irregular tax receipts and the management of treasury bills and government bonds. This meant a gradual revolving door for politicians and international bankers where both would work to create a smooth running of the banking machine between elections and other socio-cultural shifts. It matters little whether they are Democrat or Republican as long as they can be relied to dance to their economic tune for the duration of their term.
Britain happened to be the historical centre for the latest Empire and still plays a leading part in the emergence of a more comprehensive and complex Global Empire. This was based on a conglomeration of groupings with differing vested interests but the same common goal of a global totalitarian system buttressed by various corporate and religio-occult ideologies. One of the influential steerage groups Quigley mentions is the Cecil Rhodes-inspired Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) also known as Chatham House which emerged in 1891. The executive committee included corporatists and general, Messianic and Revisionist Zionists ** alike, such as: Sir Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Lord Albert Grey and Lord Arthur Balfour, the latter being integral to the creation of the State of Israel and thus British interests in the region. The aforementioned Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) was formed later in the 1920s helping to establish the United States as the “First Great Creditor” delineating a future that would eventually make a monster of global consumption and debt.
The Great War and subsequent Second World War allowed the financial network and the institutions embedded within them to make drastic changes. The aftermath saw the birth of agencies, institutions and organisations wholly financed by international banking and the military–corporate complex for specific purposes that were not just for financial control. Ideologies played an equal part, the likes of which fed into the creation of centralisation as the primary future. Britain’s influenced ostensibly waned and America became the focus of intentions. It was during this period that the world saw the creation of giant monopolies the results of which were as Quigley stated: “…larger and larger aggregates of wealth f[alling] into … control of smaller and smaller groups of men.”
So, after this very brief and streamlined look at how the economic world came into being and the undeniable disasters it has wrought on the social and ecological landscapes, what is the primary mover behind these machinations?
If we tear away the jargon and look at the actions of international banking to date, what was and always has been their aim? It was as Quigley wrote:
… nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.
* Social Darwinism: noun [mass noun] – the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform. – Oxford Dictionary Unfortunately, it is still very much alive.
** Zionism: “an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel.” – Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Further details from Wikipedia: “Zionism is a political movement among Jews (although supported by some non-Jews) which maintains that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focused on the establishment of a Jewish national homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there.Since the Six Day War of 1967, when Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza, the objectives and methods of the Zionist movement and of Israel have come under increasing criticism. The Arab world opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine from the outset, but during the course of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians since 1967, the legitimacy of Israel, and thus of Zionism, has been increasingly questioned in the wider world. Since the breakdown of the Oslo Accords in 2001, attacks on Zionism in media, intellectual and political circles, particularly in Europe, have reached new levels of intensity.
Revisionist Zionism will be the primary focus in this book due to its highly visible influence in the intelligence and geo-political strategy both in Israel and the United States. The definition of Revisionist Zionism is as follows: Revisionist Zionism is a nationalist faction within the Zionist movement. It is the founding ideology of the non-religious right in Israel, and was the chief ideological competitor to the dominant socialist Labor Zionism. Revisionism is the precursor of the Likud Party.” – Wikipedia.
 Ibid. Chapter 5—European Economic Developments; Commercial Capitalism.
 Ibid. The Operations of Banking and Finance Were Concealed So They Appeared Difficult to Master.
 Ibid. Inflationary and Deflationary Prices Have Been a Major Force in History for 600 Years.
 Ibid. Bankers Obsessed With Maintaining Value of Money.
 Ibid. The Founding of the Bank of England Is One of the Great Dates in World History.
 Ibid. Norman and Strong Were Mere Agents of the Powerful Bankers Who Remained Behind the Scenes and Operated in Secret.